CWE-190 is Integer Overflow or Wraparound. The flaw arises when the product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. The database currently holds 493 vulnerabilities mapped to CWE-190 and 1 of them are in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Analyzing data...
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
| Impact | Scope | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Instability | Availability | This weakness can generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. When the calculated result is used for resource allocation, this weakness can cause too many (or too few) resources to be allocated, possibly enabling crashes if the product requests more resources than can be provided. |
| Modify Memory | Integrity | If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the overflow/wraparound results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur. |
| Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Bypass Protection Mechanism | Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control | This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows, which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of the product's implicit security policy. |
| Alter Execution Logic, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU) | Availability, Other | If the overflow/wraparound occurs in a loop index variable, this could cause the loop to terminate at the wrong time - too early, too late, or not at all (i.e., infinite loops). With too many iterations, some loops could consume too many resources such as memory, file handles, etc., possibly leading to a crash or other DoS. |
| Bypass Protection Mechanism | Access Control | If integer values are used in security-critical decisions, such as calculating quotas or allocation limits, integer overflows can be used to cause an incorrect security decision. |
| Method | Approach | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Automated Static Analysis | This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives. | High |
| Black Box | Sometimes, evidence of this weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.Without visibility into the code, black box methods may not be able to sufficiently distinguish this weakness from others, requiring follow-up manual methods to diagnose the underlying problem. | Moderate |
| Manual Analysis | This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of allocation calculations. This can be useful for detecting overflow conditions (CWE-190) or similar weaknesses that might have serious security impacts on the program.These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. | High |
| Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis | High |
| Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer | SOAR Partial |
| Manual Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) | SOAR Partial |
| Automated Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer | High |
| Architecture or Design Review | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) | High |
Below are representative vulnerabilities related to this CWE, prioritized by severity.
CWE™ Program, operated by The MITRE Corporation. Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. The MITRE Corporation hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use CWE for research, development, and commercial purposes. CWE Terms of Use.
CyStack VulnScan continuously discovers assets, validates vulnerabilities, and helps security teams prioritize remediation across the organization.
Review CyStack's security rating and practical recommendations for websites and edge assets.
Explore cybersecurity research from our team of security specialists.
Browse practical cybersecurity knowledge across CyStack's articles and guides.
en
